The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, July 14, 2017

"At least part of the project that we are engaged in, is to rewrite history that we are concerned about."

Is Hatem Bazian the most dangerous professor in the USA? Nablus-born Bazian, is notorious for calling for intifada [violent uprising] in the United States.

He is the founder of the radical organizations Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). He is a serial pusher of conspiracies, and has a "project" to re-write history. More worryingly, he is largely responsible for the wave of anti-Semitic incitement across North American campuses.For more info about Bazian, go to this link at the indispensable Canary Mission website. The Canary Mission database was created to document people and groups that are promoting hatred of the U.S., Israel and the Jewish people, particularly on college campuses in North America.You can also learn more about Bazian, SJP and AMP at their comprehensive profile pages at the Freedom Center's Discover the Networks resource site.

Front Page MagazineSource: Frontpagemag.com Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The winds of war blowing
between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Iranian subversion, are
destabilizing the Persian Gulf principalities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The winds of war blowing between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Iranian subversion, are destabilizing the Persian Gulf principalities. To make matters worse, the economic situation, which has worsened in recent years because of ill-advised decisions, is stoking fears of popular uprisings and widespread disturbances. These internal crises could lead to a new “Arab Spring” in which some of the Gulf monarchies might fall. The main winner would be Tehran, for which the current crisis, along with the boycott imposed on Qatar, has opened a path to a takeover of Bahrain – and Iran has already, in effect, taken over Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sana’a.

The Saudi economy has seen an unprecedented deterioration in recent years. The continued decline of oil prices in world markets, the massive assistance to Egypt since the July 2013 takeover by Abdel Fattah Sisi, the cost of funding the coalition fighting the Houthis and their Iranian patrons in Yemen, and of course the considerable aid extended to the Syrian rebels have wreaked havoc on Riyadh’s public treasury and the ruling monarchy’s personal wealth.

As a result, Riyadh has had to slash 900 riyals (about $300) from military and civil servant salaries as part of a major cutback in the public sector, including the abolition of salary increments and bonuses. Recently, the authorities have also had to hike taxes on cigarettes and energy drinks to the tune of 100% of the cost of the product, after having imposed new taxes in June. One sign of the crisis reflecting its severity is a new toll that will go into effect in April 2018 on roads in the Riyadh area and on crossings into neighboring Arab states.

Aside from affecting its own residents, Saudi Arabia’s economic situation also stands to affect other Gulf countries and particularly Bahrain, which is suffering its own deep crisis as Tehran arms and funds Shiite organizations aimed at destabilizing it.

The Iranians have been exploiting Riyadh’s and Bahrain’s difficulties to the hilt. Not long ago, the Saudis thwarted an attack near the holy sites of Mecca. The Iranian subversion could escalate to the point of seeking to destabilize the kingdom (as it is doing in Bahrain) by activating armed militias within its territory.

Shiite Iran is also helping Qatar, which, according to the (Saudi) plan, should by now have been begging for the lifting of the boycott. Tehran is thereby driving a wedge between the Arab Gulf principalities and bolstering its own status as the region’s hegemonic power. It has been sending Qatar tons of food and raw materials daily by sea, and these goods have flooded the emirate’s markets and shopping centers.

There is, however, no free lunch. Tehran is now regarded as having rescued Qatar, and the principality will have to reward it for this. Iranian aid has already weakened the Sunni political-military coalition that was supposed to contend with Tehran’s expansionary ambitions. For example, Qatar has pulled out of the anti-Houthi coalition in Yemen.

The state of affairs in the Persian Gulf is extremely delicate. The fall of one principality would probably lead to the fall of others. The Gulf is undergoing one of the most difficult economic crises in its history, one that could destabilize some of the monarchies. Angry demonstrations and riots against rising prices, new taxes, and mounting unemployment, similar to those that occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria in 2010 and 2011 – the ultimate nightmare of any Arab leader – are entirely plausible.

Moreover, the Qatar crisis is not over. The principality has strongly rebuffed the twelve Saudi conditions for lifting the blockade and normalizing relations with the foursome (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain). Those conditions include downgrading Qatar’s diplomatic ties with Tehran; ensuring that forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps leave the emirate; shutting Turkish military bases in Qatar; severing Doha’s ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and ISIS while ceasing to fund them; handing over terrorists residing in Qatar to the foursome; closing the Al Jazeera network; and paying compensation.

The failure of the attempt to isolate Qatar and subjugate it to the foursome’s demands has stirred fears of a Saudi military intervention there. Iran, however, has scored many points with the Arabs thanks to its support for the emirate. This is part of a long-term strategic game in which Iran first seeks to win Arab states’ sympathy and then arms and activates subversive groups in the Gulf.

Tehran is striving to curtail American and Saudi influence in the Gulf, take over the Islamic world in general, and seize the Gulf’s natural resources and holy places via its erstwhile proxies, the Yemeni Houthis positioned along the Saudi border.

If Tehran’s plan succeeds, the Persian Gulf will be effectively divided between it and Russia, a highly undesirable development for Israel. The Gulf crisis is wholly unrelated to Israel, but Jerusalem must closely monitor what is happening there.

The current situation is ostensibly good for the US. Tensions create the perfect setting for exporting weapons and military equipment, as President Trump promised he would do during his Riyadh visit. Yet instead of seeking profits, however substantial, Washington would be better off working to enhance stability in the region, lest it plunge into a new “Arab Spring.”

View PDFBESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Dr. Edy Cohen is author of the book The Holocaust in the Eyes of Mahmoud Abbas (Hebrew). Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/arab-spring-persian-gulf/ Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

'I decided to commit murder - and then my family will get money and will live comfortably.'

Terrorist shooting gun

Thinkstock

Palestinian terrorist Khaled Rajoub admitted under interrogation that
his primary motivation to attempt a terror attack was to get his family
compensation from the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The PA awards thousands of dollars monthly to a killed terrorist’s
family, in accordance with the effectiveness of the attack and size of
his family. Had he been killed, he would have secured his family a
lifetime PA allowance.

According to the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), the exact
amount of compensation would come out to 2,800 NIS/month ($800): 1,400
NIS base pay, 400 NIS for his wife, and 200 NIS for each of his 5
children. While the PA’s payments to terrorists is well known, the
direct correlation between the payments and the motivation for terror
attacks has not been proven outright, prior to the terrorist’s
admission.

Israel released segments of the police interrogation of Khaled Rajoub:

Rajoub: "I've accumulated large debts... if my son wants a
shekel, I have nothing to give him... I decided to do something
serious, such as committing murder, something in which I will both kill
and die, and then my family will get money and will live comfortably...
If I'm not able to kill soldiers, I'll try settlers, guards - in other
words any Israeli target - the important thing is that I will die and
they will kill me, so that my children will receive a [PA] allowance and
live happily"

PA payments to terror families account for a whopping 8% of the
entire PA budget. The EU, America, and some other Arab states provide
hundreds of millions of dollars every year in foreign aid due to the
PA’s economic woes. The US senate is currently debating halting all
funding until these payments stop under an initiative called the Taylor
Force act. This initiative is named after U.S. citizen Taylor Force, who
was killed on the March 9, 2015 terror attack in Jaffa, Israel.

For more information about the police interrogation of Rajoub, click here.

Bentzy FoxSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232410 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

“Iran
must be free. The dictatorship must be destroyed. Containment is
appeasement, and appeasement is surrender. The only practical goal is to
support a movement to free Iran" - Newt Gingrich

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stressed in a recent Congressional hearing that the U.S. should literally “work towards support of those elements inside Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government,” signaling the overhaul needed in Washington’s Iran policy.

From Tehran’s point of view this was, of course, a completely unpleasant surprise, as the Trump administration unexpectedly placed its weight behind those seeking true and democratic change.

Considering escalating public dissent and growing rifts in Iran’s senior hierarchy, the international community should brace for a major impact in developments centered on Iran.

Before and after the May 19th presidential “election,” Iran’s powder keg society witnessed a major outbreak of protests, especially by investors placing their savings in institutions linked to the state and/or the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).

The vast network associated with the Iranian opposition People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) has for a year now focused its widespread effort inside the country on raising awareness, especially amongst the younger generation, about the true nature of this regime’s 38-year report card.

One very troubling dossier was the summer 1988 massacre of over 30,000 political prisoners in dozens of prisons throughout Iran. Perpetrators of that horrendous purging enjoy high rank in today’s regime. Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi is ironically the minister of justice in President Hassan Rouhani’s cabinet.

Conservative cleric Ebrahim Raisi, known to be the favored candidate of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the May race, along with being groomed to succeed the ill Khamenei in the regime’s ultimate leadership post. Both Pour-Mohammadi and Raisi were leading members of the four-man “Death Commission” presiding over the mass executions.

Activities and revelations made by the PMOI/MEK network inside Iran exposed those involved in the 1988 massacre. This turn of events placed Khamenei before a major decision of enforcing his candidate as president and risking a major uprising even more powerful than that of 2009, or succumb to another term of Rouhani as his regime’s president.

Rest assured that despite promising to realize freedoms, Rouhani in his second term neither bears the intention nor will to realize anything even remotely similar to reforms.

Parallel to these developments are unprecedented divides amongst senior officials in Tehran. On a number of occasions Khamenei and his faction have indirectly issued threats against Rouhani, even comparing his fate to that of the Iranian regime’s first president back in the 1980s, who was impeached.

When IRGC Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani lashed out at those targeting the Guards, it was considered by many to be aimed at Rouhani.

“In the Islamic Republic, we’re all responsible towards martyrs, society, religion and our country. The biggest betrayal is to cast doubt toward the foundations of this system… none today must weaken the corps,” he said recently.

This is most probably a reference to Rouhani’s recent remarks against the IRGC through the elections process and after presidential campaign.

This dangerous dispute will also leave Khamenei incapable of grooming any successor to his throne or managing a smooth transitional process, set to become deadly for the mullahs’ already unclear future.

Couple all these dilemmas on Khamenei’s table with the growing turmoil in the Middle East as ISIS’ days are numbered. Attention among the international community is focusing on post-ISIS circumstances and the Trump administration is receiving further calls to weigh options blacklisting the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, and ultimately seeking regime change through supporting the Iranian opposition.

“Iran must be free. The dictatorship must be destroyed. Containment is appeasement, and appeasement is surrender. The only practical goal is to support a movement to free Iran. Any other goal will leave a dictatorship finding ways to get around any agreement and to lie about everything,” said Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives, at a recent Iranian opposition rally near Paris. Gingrich is known for his very close relations with President Trump.

Such an initiative also enjoys vast regional support, voiced also recently by a prominent Saudi figure.

“The Iranian people are the first victims of [the mullahs’] dictatorship,” said former Saudi intelligence chief Turki Faisal. “Your effort in challenging this regime is legitimate and your resistance for the liberation of the Iranian people of all ethnicities, including Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, Turks and Fars of the mullahs’ evil, as [Iranian opposition leader Maryam] Rajavi said, is a legitimate struggle.”

Even a brief glance at ongoing developments emerging domestically and abroad for Iran, provides convincing evidence that regime change is absolutely in the making in Tehran.

Heshmat AlaviSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/iran_regime_change_is_in_the_making.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Over
the past several years, Jordan has repeatedly besmirched Israel with
falsehoods and libelous allegations, resulting in a growing number of
anti-Israeli U.N. resolutions.

Is
Israel treating Jordan with kid gloves? Does Israel cut the Hashemite
Kingdom too much slack even though Amman is now spearheading anti-Israel
efforts on the world stage, alongside the Palestinians?

Jordan's Minister of
State for Media Affairs Mohammad Al Momani recently boasted that the
kingdom was the driving force behind UNESCO's decision to declare
Hebron's old city an endangered Palestinian world heritage site. Over
the past several years, Jordan has repeatedly besmirched Israel with
falsehoods and libelous allegations, resulting in a growing number of
anti-Israeli U.N. resolutions.

Jordanian diplomats'
main focus is Jerusalem, and particularly the Temple Mount: Jordanian
media regularly reports ludicrous claims about Israel's alleged actions
at the site, including the libelous assertion that Israeli encroachment
is threatening the Al-Aqsa mosque. Even the preposterous claim that
Israel is allowing settlers to "conquer" the site and alter the status
quo has become prevalent in the Jordanian media.

And yet, Israel has let
the Jordanian behavior slide. After all, there are economic, security
and economic considerations at stake that Israel does not want to
jeopardize. But above all, the "handle-with-care" approach is meant to
ensure the monarchy's stability. The unofficial explanation for this
posture is that Israel needs Jordan. But while this may be true, Jordan
needs Israel as well. In the grand scheme of things, both countries need
the other. For obvious reasons, I cannot go into details on the exact
nature of the ties.

To ensure that this
special relationship thrives, Israel has been willing to make
concessions on the Temple Mount. Over the last several years, Jordan has
become a de-facto administrator of the site. In 2014, Jordan and Israel
struck an agreement on how the site was to be governed. This agreement,
made possible through U.S. mediation, all but made Jordan's presence on
the mount official. Jordan also has a written agreement with the
Palestinian Authority that makes the kingdom the representative of the
Palestinian interests in the city until a Palestinian state is
established, with Jerusalem as its capital. But Jordan's agreements with
Israel and the Palestinians are often incompatible with one another,
and this is clear on the world stage, where Jordan is determined to
prove its anti-Israeli chops as a means of obtaining a Palestinian stamp
of approval.

Perhaps this is good
time to remind the Jordanians of the dubious "tolerance" they exhibited
during their 19-year occupation of Judea and Samaria between 1948 and
1967. For example, they chose to blatantly violate their written pledge
to allow Jews to visit holy sites beyond the border, including the
Western Wall and Rachel's Tomb. Under their watch, tens of thousands of
Jewish graves on Jerusalem's Mount of Olives were vandalized or
demolished to make room for rudimentary toilets, trails and stairs.
Dozens of synagogues and yeshivot were destroyed as well during that
period, to ensure that the city's Jewish heritage was erased. Jordan
also destroyed the cemetery in Hebron, where the victims of the 1929
Jewish massacre were buried, and used it to grow vegetables, with bones
occasionally appearing among the crops. The famous Avraham Avinu
Synagogue in Hebron was turned into a public bathroom and a goat pen.
Meanwhile, Jordanians took over the yeshivot and synagogues in the two
Jewish quarters -- in Hebron and in Jerusalem -- and turned them into
homes. There is nothing wrong with
reminding people of Jordan's actions, and Israel should not be
reluctant to employ this tactic. Israel also has every right to arrest
the administrators on the Temple Mount whenever they incite to violence.
The Israel Police has justifiably done so and the officers should have
our support.

A red line must be
drawn when it comes to the Jordanian-led efforts on the Temple Mount, to
make it clear that the site is under Israeli sovereignty and must be
subject to Israeli laws. Israel should also drive home the message that
under Israeli control, the Muslims and Christians in the city can
worship freely and that the religious freedom they enjoy is a world
apart from what the Jordanians allowed.

Nadav ShragaiSource: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=19419 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Resisting the occupation is NOT terrorism it is a legitimate right
of defending one self from your land from real terrorists i.e. IDF,"
Dhaouadi wrote.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal with CAIR-Connecticut's Mongi Dhaouadi

A board member with the Council on American Islamic Relations' (CAIR) Connecticut chapter reposted a video by a designated
al-Qaida terrorist on his Facebook page last month and says Palestinian
attacks against Israel aren't terrorist acts. Nonetheless, U.S. Sen.
Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., considers Mongi Dhaouadi
his go-to guy on Muslim issues and has worked with him closely for the
past six years. This relationship is particularly curious considering
Blumenthal's strong statements of support for Israel.

Dhaouadi is a man of contradictions. On one hand, he says that Islam and terror do not mix.

"These terrorist groups don't represent our faith, do not represent
our community. And so we want to make that clear to everyone who keeps
saying that we don't hear enough from the Muslim community. We say it
and we say it over and over again," Dhaouadi said in November 2015.

A 2004 Treasury Department
statement calls Al-Zindani one of bin Laden's "spiritual leaders." He
also helped buy arms for al-Qaida and other terrorists. Al-Zindani also appears on the United Nations list of specially designated terrorists.He also served on the board
of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi's Hamas-funding operation known as the Union
of Good, the Treasury Department said in a 2008 press release labeling
it a terrorist operation. Al-Zindani's al-Qaida connection persists; the Treasury Department noted in 2013 that he provides "religious guidance in support of [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula] operations."

In the video Dhaouadi posted on Facebook, Al-Zindani thanked Qatar for supporting
Al-Jazeera and for giving refuge to people who had been kicked out of
their home countries – a likely reference to the terrorists harbored by
the Gulf emirate.

That might be appealing to Dhaouadi, who has issued extreme anti-Israel statements.

After Saudi Arabia demanded that Qatar sever ties with Hamas last month, Dhaouadi accused the Saudis of "doing the bidding for the apartheid state of Israel. Selling out the Palestinian cause in the open."

Palestinian attacks on Israelis, he has said, are not terrorist acts.

"Resisting the occupation is NOT terrorism it is a legitimate right
of defending one self from your land from real terrorists i.e. IDF,"
Dhaouadi wrote.Blumenthal has condemned Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis.

Dhaouadi's support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS)
movement against Israel also stands at odds with Blumenthal's stated
support for Israel.

"Support for Israel on this issue has been and will continue to be
strongly bipartisan. Consistent with past policy, this Administration
must now veto this most recent misguided and one-sided attempt backed by
the Palestinian Authority to isolate Israel and weaken the peace
process," Blumenthal wrote.

"It's not an overreaction in my opinion. Because it's just like
anti-Semitism is wrong, you don't put down a religion just because you
are not of that religion. It's not supposed to be happening. Making fun
of religion, making a joke of a prophet just to provoke people's
emotion, it's not right. It's basically bashing a religion," Malik said.

Fellow Connecticut board member Eman Beshtawii supports the Boycott,
Divestment, Sanctions movement and rejects Israel's right to exist as a
Jewish state.

"If you support Israel's 'right to exist as a Jewish state' in a
country whose indigenous Palestinian people today form half the
population, then you ... must come to terms with the inevitability of
massacres," Beshtawii wrote in a 2014 Facebook post.

Blumenthal joined a rogue's gallery of Islamic extremists on the
program at the 2011 banquet. That included Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who testified in defense of 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman, and Ahmed Bedier, a former CAIR Tampa executive who described Israel as a "terror [state]."

"I want to thank you for your friendship, for your support, for
giving me the honor of being your United States senator; I am the United
States senator for every single person in this room. I work for you," Blumenthal told the CAIR audience.

That month, Blumenthal also participated in a joint press conference
with Dhaouadi and announced a plan to bring Syrian refugees into the
U.S. quicker. A month later, Blumenthal again stood with Dhaouadi and
CAIR Connecticut at his state's capitol on Nov. 21 calling for stronger hate crimes laws.

Dhaouadi, like other CAIR leaders, has a history of promoting hate crimes that turn out to be false. He labeled the brutal 2012 murder of Iraqi Muslim refugee Shaima Alawadi outside San Diego a hate crime."She was found dead two weeks ago in her home, beaten, with a note
sitting next to her that says, 'Go back home terrorist,' 'Go back home
terrorist,'" Dhaouadi said. "I
don't know about you, but I have two daughters who wear the head scarf
and they walk down the streets and they attend the public schools in New
London."Her husband was later convicted of the crime.

Several weeks after the hate crimes press conference, Blumenthal attended a forum on the subject at the Islamic Center of Connecticut in Windsor with Dhaouadi. During this CAIR-sponsored event, Blumenthal promised to "vigorously question" Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions.

He supports Ennahda Party founder Rached Ghannouchi, a member of the International Muslim Brotherhood's Guidance Bureau. Dhaouadi's Facebook timeline includes numerous posts featuring images of Ghannouchi or news about the cleric.

Additionally, Ghannouchi's name appears in the phone book of Youssef Nada, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood controlled Al-Taqwa Bank, which U.S. Treasury officials described as an al-Qaida and Hamas funding source.

Blumenthal castigated Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his association
with Center for Security Policy founder, president and CEO Frank
Gaffney and David Horowitz Freedom Center founder and CEO David Horowitz
during Sessions' January confirmation hearing.

Blumenthal wanted Sessions to disavow having called Horowitz "a man I admire."

Blumenthal likewise asked Sessions to disavow the support that
Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy gave him when they gave him
an award in August 2015.

"Senator Blumenthal ... has trouble distinguishing America's
defenders from her enemies," Horowitz told the Investigative Project on
Terrorism in an email.

Gaffney likewise slammed Blumenthal.

"He is so willfully blind, and so evidently under the influence of
Muslim Brotherhood operatives that he is both evidently clueless about
the threat they represent here in the United States, and he compounds it
by castigating people who understand it far better than he does,"
Gaffney said.

Blumenthal's office did not respond to requests for comment.

His alliance with Dhaouadi is curious, given his grandstanding on
Gaffney and Horowitz. If it's bad for Sessions to like people with
controversial positions, why is it okay for Blumenthal?

John RossomandoSource: https://www.investigativeproject.org/6412/richard-blumenthal-cair-ally-posts-al-qaida Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How is such a Program allowed a foothold in any American community?

For the past 30 years, a Philadelphia-based organization called Need in Deed (NID) has been training elementary and middle-school teachers “to use the classroom to prepare young people for civic responsibility and service to others.” And how, exactly, does NID do this? By training its teachers to engage students in long-term “service projects” whose objective is to: (a) inculcate youngsters with the notion that America is an oppressive wasteland where nonwhite minorities, women, homosexuals, the poor, and even the natural environment are routinely exploited and abused; and (b) turn children into budding political activists and community organizers who seek to fundamentally transform that deeply flawed society.
For example, in one NID project at Grover Washington Jr. Middle School in Philadelphia, eighth-grade students explored “some of the discriminatory housing forces – practices like redlining, steering, predatory lending and ethnic intimidation – that have influenced the[ir] city’s racial and economic segregation” over the years. As part of their instruction, these students watched an ABC Nightline segment titled “Race in America,” which examined the case of a black family that had fearfully fled their new home in a mostly white section of Philadelphia after neighbors harassed them with racial epithets and threatening letters. After watching the video, the students were asked to express, in writing, their outrage over how the black family had been mistreated.

As part of that same NID project, Princeton sociologist Doug Massey, author of American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of an Underclass – a book claiming that black urban poverty is largely a result of massive discrimination in U.S. cities – addressed the students personally. In a subsequent lesson, the youngsters watched a documentary titled Race: The Power of an Illusion, which, in the words of its producer, “reveals how our social institutions 'make' race by disproportionately channeling resources, power, status and wealth to white people.”
Another NID project – designed to introduce young people to purportedly heroic women who have battled the forces of “racism, homophobia, [and] sexism” – required the pupils to read the Kate Schatz book Rad American Women A-Z. The women who are profiled and lionized in Schatz's book are almost all leftists, and in some cases Marxists or political revolutionaries. Among them:

In 2011, an NID-affiliated teacher in West Philadelphia led her class in a project focusing on the correlation between gun violence and the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The lessons and activities associated with this project were heavily weighted against gun-ownership rights, and in favor of gun control. Most notably, the project solicited a considerable amount of input from Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization that has worked to shut down gun manufacturing businesses, and to make gun manufacturers legally liable for crimes committed with the weapons they produce.
Another NID-affiliated teacher led his students in a project examining the problem of wrongful convictions in criminal court, and promoting the notion that the American criminal-justice system is replete with race-based discrimination and inequity. As part of this project, the students met with a representative from Pennsylvania’s Innocence Project, whose mission – which is likewise founded on the premise of a racist justice system – is to “free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated.”
Yet another leading concern of NID is the issue of immigration policy. In one third-grade class earlier this year, an NID teacher led her students in a project examining “the physiological and psychological effects of stress” associated with “the current political climate around immigrants and immigration.” “Half of my students,” the teacher said, “were kept home from school to observe 'A Day Without Immigrants'” – a reference to a May 1, 2017 action in which enormous numbers of Latino immigrants, activists, and workers took the day off from their jobs and marched in the streets of dozens of American cities, in what organizers characterized as a response to President Donald Trump's supposedly anti-immigration agendas.

At present, NID consists of approximately 140 member teachers in 60 schools throughout the city of Philadelphia. It is through the efforts of such individuals and such organizations, that an entire generation of young people is being indoctrinated in the corrosive, anti-American, anti-capitalist mindset of the hard Left.

Discover the NetworksSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267252/poisoning-minds-americas-schoolchildren-discover-networks Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Muslim activist and Women's March organizer, Linda Sarsour, has helpfully exposed a side of Islam that is pro-Sharia and pro-jihad

What the West needs to know
is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than
women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Linda
Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that "peace" in Islam will come only after
the whole world has converted to Islam, and that "justice" means law
under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is "justice;" whatever is not in Sharia is not "justice."

Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman,
unthinkable. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop
under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women?
That is why Sarsour's jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of
feminism but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will
give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential
treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism
allowed to develop.

Muslim activist and Women's March organizer, Linda Sarsour, has helpfully exposed a side of Islam that is pro-Sharia and pro-jihad:

"I hope that ... when we stand up to those who oppress
our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad,
that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the
Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United
States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and
Islamophobes reigning in the White House."

Although Sarsour later protested that the word jihad literally means
"struggle" or that "our beloved prophet ... said... 'A word of truth in
front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad,'"
that is not what the word jihad means
in general parlance to anyone you might ask in the Middle East. The
people there know only too well that if they even tried to speak a "word
of truth" to someone in power, that could possibly be the last word
they would ever utter.

The word jihad is not a matter of left or right or liberal or
conservative, except when it being manipulated to repackage and sell as
something warm, fuzzy and non-threatening to trusting people in the
West.

In Sarsour's world, women who do this are called feminists, but, in
reality, they are as dangerous to women's rights, the peace of a nation
and stability of its government as male jihadists.

At a recent Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention,
Sarsour urged fellow Muslims, in an openly racist speech, to wage jihad
against the "fascist" and "white supremacist" White House, be
perpetually outraged, and not to assimilate. She mentioned 9/11 not as a
terrorist event waged by Muslims against Americans, but as a day that
triggered victimization and Islamophobia against Muslims by America.

Americans got upset just because they were murdered? As the saying goes: "It all started when he hit me back."

Even though Sarsour later claimed her use of the word "jihad" meant non-violent dissent, that is not
what the word is taken to mean in any Muslim country. There, it means
only one thing: war in the service of Islam. In addition, her speech did
not sound peaceful. It clearly sounded more like a call for an Islamic
uprising against the White House.

Linda
Sarsour's recent speech calling to wage jihad against the "fascist" and
"white supremacist" White House did not sound peaceful. It clearly
sounded more like a call for an Islamic uprising. Pictured: Sarsour at
the Women's March on Washington, on January 21, 2017. (Photo by Theo
Wargo/Getty Images)

Sarsour apparently identifies as a feminist.
Sarsour's kind of feminism, however, embraces the most oppressive legal
system, especially for women: Islamic religious law, Sharia. Sarsour's
feminism is supposedly for empowering women, but it twists logic in a
way similar to how Muslim preachers do when they claim that beating
one's wife is a husband's way of honoring her.

Pro-Sharia feminism is a perverted kind of feminism that could not
care less about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women. Sarsour's
logic concerning women does not differ much from that of Suad Saleh, an
Egyptian female Islamic cleric, who recently justified on Egyptian TV
the doctrine of intentional humiliation and rape of captured women in
Islam. Saleh said, "One of the purposes of raping captured enemy women
and young girls was to humiliate and disgrace them and that is
permissible under Islamic law." There was not even a peep in Egypt's
civil society about such a statement.

Muslim feminists seem to think that they must defend Sharia and
"Allah" before any other consideration -- including women. Musdah Mulia,
a Muslim professor, who also claims to be a feminist, maintains that
Islam is a religion of equality. She has said, "blame Muslims, not
Islam, for gender inequity." Muslim anthropologist Ziba Mir-Mosseini has
argued "The problem [for women in Islam] has never been with the text
(the Koran), but with the context." That means, presumably, that the
problem is everyone's fault except for the sources themselves: Islam,
the Koran and Sharia.

The reason Islamic feminism has been perverted is because over
centuries it had to conform to Islamic law, Sharia, which regulates to a
fare-thee-well all behavior of women, men and children. Many Muslims,
however, seem to be in denial that the main goal of Sharia is to promote
life under the bondage of Sharia as good and healthy. Sharia therefore
becomes a convoluted way of coercing people to adapt to tyranny.

In London, for instance, devout Muslim women, while wearing a full
black niqab, are seen carrying signs protesting British law, supporting
Sharia and threatening Europe with another Holocaust and another 9/11.
Here in America, the angry mother of the Tsarnaev brothers, responsible
for the Boston Marathon bombing, instead of apologizing for what her
sons did in a country that welcomed them, warned that "America will
pay." These are the kind of women that Arab TV places on pedestals. The
message to Muslim women is that this is the only kind of feminism
Islamic society will tolerate.

"Muslim feminism" is essentially the feminine form of jihad: women
defend Sharia, promote jihad, and even emulate the Islamic "virtue and
vice police" against other women.

Strong and assertive women do exist in Islam, but to stay strong and
respected they have to sell women who want to escape the tyranny of
Sharia. Because of the tremendous pressure from life under Sharia,
Muslim women have developed a warped form of feminism: a kind of coping
mechanism like a "Stockholm Syndrome," where the captive believes that
if he is nice to his captors they might treat him better. Like kidnap
victims trying to merge with the thinking of their kidnappers in order
to survive, women in the Islamic world have learned to defend Sharia and
be protective of Islam's reputation as priority number one. That is
what Linda Sarsour is advocating today as "feminism."

If such Muslim feminists truly cared about women, why are they not
dedicating their work and effort against the rape and oppression of
Yazidi, Christian and women of other sects who are being abused and
tortured by Muslim men not only in the Middle East but also in Europe?
The only women who are coming to the rescue of women being raped in the
Middle East are Western women -- unfortunately not Muslim "feminists."

Most hijab-wearing Muslim women tell Western audiences that they are
not oppressed and are proud of their "protection" under the hijab or the
niqab.

What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is
considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself.
If we are told, as Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that "peace" in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that "justice" means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is "justice;" whatever is not in Sharia is not "justice."

The cruelty of life under Sharia produces two kinds of women: the
aggressive and proud, and the doormats. The aggressive Muslim
"feminists" often turn their aggression not on the cruel system, but on
weak women who are victims of Sharia -- because it is so much easier to
turn on the weak than to take on a system that has the power to harm,
jail or kill you; and they hope to be praised and rewarded for
supporting the system that abuses them.

The system, at its origins, was designed to please men -- promising
them anything and everything if they sacrificed their life on earth and
their earthly wife and family for jihad. In such a system women, life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness had to be sacrificed:

"But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and
perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while
you know not." (Surah Al-Baqarah [2:216] - Quran)

What Islam wants is for men to kill the enemies of Allah and get
killed to expand Islam and then presumably go to paradise. Women's
welfare has therefore become an inconvenience to Sharia to say the
least.

Strong Muslim women know what they should do if they are to enjoy a
certain level of power and respect in Islamic society. They must never
defy Sharia, but embrace it. The rewards for compliant Muslim women may
explain why most of the Muslim college professors sent by Saudi Arabia
to teach Americans never criticize Sharia but claim it to be harmless
and even liberating.

An Islamic "Sarsour style" of feminism has to be
Sharia-compliant in the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mode. Such
women have a high degree of tolerance for domestic violence and
oppression of other women whom they can regard as "dissolute" or "bad."
After being indoctrinated under such a cruel legal system, Muslim
feminists end up taking pride in conforming to Sharia while condemning
the supposedly "bad" women who do not conform. Whatever unpleasant acts
might happen to these other women, according to many Muslim "feminists,"
those women brought it on themselves by not accepting Sharia.

Centuries of sacrificing family happiness for jihad have taught
Muslim women that they are an inconvenience to men who supposedly would
prefer to be doing jihad. Thus the "wise" Muslim woman molds herself and
others to fit into Islam's priorities. Islam calls any woman who rebels
"nashiz" ("rebellious"), a derogatory term. Under Sharia, a husband could lock up his nashiz wife at home for life and get three other wives and enjoy his life while she is locked up.

Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman,
unthinkable. That is why during the "Arab Spring," not one Muslim woman
carried a sign against the oppression of Sharia in Egypt's Tahrir
Square. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an
Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women?

That is why Linda Sarsour's jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic
kind of feminism, but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that
will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential
treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism
allowed to develop.

This Islamic oppressive view of women is now creeping into Western cultural views of feminism. Recently, USA Today celebrated the hijab as symbol of feminism.

It is important that this brand of "pride in bondage" kind of
feminism that people such as Linda Sarsour are trying to "sell" not be
"bought" by the good-hearted, but insufficiently informed people in the
West.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of "Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values"Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10669/islamic-feminism-sarsour Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.